5 Reasons the US Military Is in Trouble

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Jul 13, 2016.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    .................Thornberry outlined five alarming facts caused by the readiness crisis:

    1. “The Air Force is short 4,000 maintainers and more than 700 pilots today.” It doesn’t matter how many planes the Air Force has, or how modern they may be, if they can’t fly. Without qualified mechanics to maintain the aircraft and properly train pilots to fly them, the Air Force will struggle to accomplish its mission.
    1. “In 2015 the Navy had a backlog of 11 planes in depot, next year in [20]17 they are going to have a backlog of 278.” Readiness levels for the entire fleet have fallen as the Navy’s maintenance crews are being asked to work longer hours with less funding. More planes in maintenance mean fewer are available to meet mission requirements.
    1. “Less than one-third of the Army is ready to meet the requirements of the Defense Strategic Guidance—it’s supposed to be no less than two-thirds.” The Army is already at a historically small level, and much of what remains of the service is not ready for combat. If a major war were to break out, the U.S. Army simply isn’t ready.
    1. “Marine Corps aviation requires on average 10 hours of flight time a month and they are getting about four.” Like any skill, practice is essential. Pilots without practice make more mistakes, which become deadly when flying complex aircraft, especially when in combat. The lives of Marines are at greater risk because of these funding cuts.
    http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/12/5...acebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb
    1. “Less than half of the Air Force combat forces are ready to face a peer competitor such as China and Russia.” While the U.S. military faces this readiness crisis, America’s potential adversaries are increasing defense spending and modernization efforts as U.S. spending declines.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. exscentric

    exscentric
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    16
    I've read a couple of articles telling of parts shortages for planes, they are stealing parts from other planes to keep planes in the air.
     
  3. Smyth

    Smyth
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    47
    The US spends more money on the military than 99% of the countries of the world combined. It truly is sad of people like Rubio and Cruise campaigning on increased military spending. That fetish for the military works against Christian and conservative interests.
     
  4. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    Trump: ‘I Would Increase’ Military Spending

    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated he would increase military spending on Wednesday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

    After host Sean Hannity talked about the penny plan, [relevant exchange begins around 7:25] Trump said, “except the military.”

    He was then asked, “You would increase spending on the military?” Trump responded, “I would increase on the military.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/09/trump-i-would-increase-military-spending/
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    You of all people are quoting briebart
     
  6. Smyth

    Smyth
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trump had no enthusiasm in his "increase" statement. Trump went on to complain with some enthusiasm them money we're spending on the military to protect countries like South Korea, Japan, and Germany.

    Trump is better than Rubio, Cruz, and Hillary on military spending.
     
  7. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    266
    The military is affected by the same problems as any other bureaucracy. Instead of being mean and lean, able to adapt to an ever changing threat, we've become a DMV that occasionally kills people.
     
  8. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    Yes, I considered the person I was replying to and tried to find a source he would consider trustworthy. Could have quoted other sources but they would have been "biased".

    Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo
     
  9. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    When the military became a social experiment instead of a war fighting machine, this is when it all started to fall apart. Obama's Generals are more interested in appeasing the homosexual crowd than in meeting missions. Obama has stained not only the Whitehouse but the Pentagon as well. We will need a spiritual cleansing on 20 Jan 2017 to begin with. Hopefully we will not need to go to war before we can straighten this out. I wonder if we do if the transgenders will be able to fight without wearing skirts?
     
  10. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    310
    Not trying to deminish the problems of today's military, but how is this situation any different than others in the past. We've seen this drawing down and hollowing out before. Post WW2 and post Vietnam come to mind.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    You're right, we've through this many times and the lesson is always the same. The cost of playing catch up is far more that the cost of playing keep up , both in dollars and the lives of those serving in the military. Liberals just never learn it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  12. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    310
    The draw downs I cited and those post war ones before, were bi-partisan
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. MsGuidedAngel

    MsGuidedAngel
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    4
    Please PRAY for our Conservative Troops in the Armed Forces!! "Pray Without Ceasing." ( 1 Thessalonians 5:17 KJV )!!

    The USA Military Purge from Obama 2011-2013 Video!! ( https://kristiann1.com/2015/02/25/omp/ )!!

    Pray for our Judeo-Christian Nation United States of America and Israel-Yisrael Everyone Everyday too our True GOD who art in Heaven!!

    Love Always and Shalom ( Peace ) Everyone, YSIC \o/

    Kristi Ann
     
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Your definition of "bi-partisan" is....?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  15. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    310
    Cut backs were made after the ACW, Spanish American, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. They were not a matter of partisan politics.
    The problem with cut backs in 2016 is we are still in the middle of a long term conflict. But, the current administration and its hoped for successor want to unilaterally declare an end of hostilities and get on with the draw down.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    So you don't have a definition. Even one vote from the opposition makes it "bi-partisan", right?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    So this one is not "bi-partisan" in you opinion?
     
  18. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    310
    Nope, in the cases, I cited the draw downs were not opposed on party lines. Nor were they promoted on party lines.

    Take the WW2 draw down for an example. Stalin wasn't considered a real immediate threat after VJ Day. So, the US went about going back to a "peace" time military establishment. If anything, the conservatives wanted to pull back from overseas.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Granted. WWII is a noted exception. But the enemy was thoroughly defeated. Such has not been the case since.

    And now, as you noted, the enemy is still very much active.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  20. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    There's a lot to consider on this question. First, technology has leveraged the fighting power of American forces. I can remember when it took 18 soldiers to place and fire a 180mm howitzer. Now a Multiple Launch Rocket System (or the more mobile HIMARS) can place more steel on target in less time with three (or even two) people. Just as in manufacturing, fewer people can do more these days.

    Now, there is no excuse for having insufficient parts, etc., but this is certainly not new. The demands of Iraq, in particular, bled the training side of the Army (and that's the service I know the most about) during the second Gulf War.

    The problem is that we don't know what war we're going to fight. Do we man (and pay for) a force that is able to fight every single contingency that might come along? I doubt even the most ardent hawks are willing to go that far.

    Another problem: For the last many years, the pay of military personnel has increased above the rate of growth in the private sector. Now, I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but that (and increasing health care costs) limits the ability of the military to buy parts, develop new weapons systems, etc. An all-volunteer force isn't cheap, and it doesn't do any good to pretend otherwise.

    All in all, I think the Army is in pretty good shape, certainly much better than it was a few years ago when it was being bled dry by Iraq.

    The question is: What do you want the military to do? If you want it to go all over the world in force to right wrongs, then you not only have to pay for it, but you also have to convince young people to join. I doubt the American people are really willing to support a force that would be capable of dealing with every conceivable contingency.

    Now, if you want to put extra money into the forces that can reliably combat terrorism, that's a relatively small amount of money. There's no point in equipping and paying a division when you can more readily react to the threat with a company or battalion of specially trained people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page

Loading...